"exceptions such as rap"Given that pro believes that the involvement of rap should open an exception to allow abortion, there is a slippery slope that could allow almost anything to be an exception. What if the man took her to dinner and gave her flowers for example? His actions made her do something she otherwise might not have, manipulating her mental state in more devious ways than the case of mere rap.

The idea of this anti-abortion law seems racist in design, as it would disproportionately affect the children of Black Men, as their culture makes them more likely to commit rap. Further it would be nearly impossible to prove rap was not involved in conception. Any girl wanting an abortion, would merely claim rap to make it legal.

Of course it is my firm belief that rap is not only morally neutral, but that women actually enjoy it! As proof of their interest in it, let’s consider how they get dressed up, and go into the cities (often alone) to look for it. If they don’t want it, why encourage it with such outfits?

I don't mean to insult you but anyone with a brain could realize and see that women do not and I repeat do not enjoy being raped. Seriously thats sick. I still stand on my belief on when a person should be allowed to have an abortion. There are appropriate times for abortion and there are times that it is not appropiate such as inmaturity. And cultures, I am just talking about in the USA.

Rebuttals: “Women do not and I repeat do not enjoy being raped.” I agree, but such as irrelevant to the debate at hand. How they feel about rape, has no bearing on the rap exception.

“And cultures, I am just talking about in the USA.” The USA is a nation of well over 300 million people, by nature it would be impossible to have them all be of a single culture. For example: Someone could have grew up urban or rural, creating a different cultural experience even while they retain the same nationality. In relation to this debate, the urban person is more likely to enjoy rap, and the rural person is more likely to enjoy country.

Possible Confusion: This debate was clearly from R1 onward about rap music.

In R1 I clearly stated “manipulating her mental state in more devious ways than the case of mere rap,” leaving no room for confusion with the physically coercion of rape.

In R2 I pointed out that “rap is not only morally neutral, but that women actually enjoy it!” Which they do, they dress up and go to concerts. I even provided a picture of Miley Cyrus dressed up in a manner to suggest she enjoys being rapped at; as a separate activity to sex (even if both can be enjoyed at the same time, along with drugs).

In R3 pro attempted to shift to goalpost to rape, which is entirely unrelated to rap.

Conclusion: Pro’s proposed law leaves a giant loophole making abortion effectively legal, as all a girl need do is claim to have listened to rap (I assume during conception) to allow the abortion. This key point went unchallenged.

However the true issue of this debate was the value of spelling and grammar, with pro insisting “spelling is not the debate so there's no need for you to clean out any Aaron Spelling,” and myself disagreeing. While I believe I have won by either standard, I suggest only a Spelling & Grammar vote.

I wasn't necessarily calling you an idiot, but the fact that you are religious probably means that your religion is a factor in your opposition toward abortion, which is something I look down on. And I still believe that anyone against abortion is either a right winger, sexist, or a primitive bible basher, or all three.

@1davey29: While I'm fine with your vote as is, in future I advise making protest votes solely affect conduct. Any offence I have inflicted upon victims to rap, fail to reveal any flaw in my English, nor does it magically make my opponent have used evidence.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's irrelevant responses. Spelling and grammar to Con for Pro's many punctuation errors.
Arguments to Con because Pro failed to meet the burden of proof and Con made good points about Pro's exception of rap.

Reasons for voting decision: S&G goes to Con for impeccable writing, whereas Pro had quite a few issues, especially in punctuation. Pro wasted an entire round(#2) by submitting a single sentence. Arguments to Con, since all Pro had to offer were personal beliefs and ad hominems. I award it 4-0 to Con.

Reasons for voting decision: Besides personal bias feeling that anti-choice stances/policies on abortion to be oppressive, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional, the con clearly won this. The affirmation never even made an effort to correct her typo and the negation was merely running a case of pure refutation verbatim what the affirmation said and did so successfully. The affirmation also had very poor spelling (i.e. 'rap' instead of 'rape' as well as MANY other instances) and grammar as well as punctuation, etc. No sources were cited on either side though, but that's just a technicality. In summary, the con offered a very strong and solid case that was also very entertaining and not challenged on any solid ground by the pro who offered no clear points while the cons case of pure refutation did keep a structured debate format. And did I mention he was extremely entertaining while keeping a serious and valid case? Bravo.

Reasons for voting decision: No proper arguments presented by Pro, where as Con refuted every single arguments of Pro and also made a better case for his position. As pointed out by Con, the possible confusion about "Rap" is irrelevant. The debate was about "Abortion" and in R1, Pro made a spelling mistake, instead of writing "Rape", she wrote "Rap". This seems to have a confusion about "Rap" and "Rape". Its quite ridiculous bringing "Rap" into this topic.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.